Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the criminal complaint and the summoning order are liable to be quashed only on the following grounds"-

(i)Learned trial court has not property appreciated the records pertaining to FIR No. 129 dated 28.3.2013 produced by Shamsher Singh ASI CW11 which contained the suicide note written by Suresh on the basis whereof, the complainant/respondent No. 2 along with others were indicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 IPC in regard to abetment of suicide committed by deceased Suresh. In addition, it is submitted that suicide note was sent by the prosecution to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and as per FSL report dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-5), the suicide note was found to be in handwriting of Suresh. Further argued that the suicide note demolishes version of the complainant that Neelam was murdered by Suresh alongwith the petitioners on the intervening night of 27/28.3.2013.

Counsel for the contesting respondent Sh. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, on the contrary, has submitted that the petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court by raising disputed questions of facts which are not amenable to adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Neelam, daughter of the complainant was the victim of harassment and cruelty meted out to her at the hands of her husband and his family members and she along with her child had been staying at her parental house. Few days before the occurrence, the accused in pursuance of their well thought of plan persuaded Neelam to come back to matrimonial home with a promise to keep her well. Neelam had been going to her matrimonial home, staying there during day time and coming back to her parental home in the evening. On 27.3.2013, at the asking of her husband, Neelam had taken her son alongwith as it was Holi festival. Little knowing about planning of her husband and his family members, she did not return to her parental home in the evening and was made to stay back in the matrimonial home on the pretext of 27.3.2013 and 28.3.2013 being days of festivity in connection with Holi. On the intervening night of 27/28.3.2013, Suresh and his family members brutally murdered Neelam and in the post mortem examination of Neelam, 14 injuries were found on her body and her unfortunate parents saw their daughter lying in a pool of blood. Sulab, a child aged about 10 years was rendered orphan and saw gruesome murder of his mother and narrated his tale of woe during his examination in the Court. It is argued with vehemence that at this stage, statement of Sulab cannot be entertained with doubt in view of submissions made by counsel for the petitioners which, at best, can be the pleas raised in defence during trial. Further submitted that at the pre process stage, the accused have no right to be heard in the matter nor it is open for the Court to entertain much less appreciate any plea likely to be raised during defence. The complainant has explained as to the circumstances under which the FIR was registered by the police by recording his statement themselves on blank signatures of the complainant with an intent to save the culprits of their criminality. Any suicide note purported to be left behind by the deceased is a matter of evidence to be led before the court and can be appreciated at an appropriate stage of the proceedings.

Counsel is at pains to contend that the complainant party lost their daughter who met a very unfortunate end and have been falsely implicated in regard to suicide committed by Suresh. It is submitted that it is against human conduct that a person after committing murder of his wife brutally would be in a position to scribe a suicide note before terminating his life. Perusal of the alleged suicide note would make it evident that the same makes reference that he has already committed suicide but still writing a note and this fact creates a serious doubt that the writing Annexure P4 was authored by deceased Suresh. On the said writing, there appears to be signatures of Neelam and if the suicide note was scribed after murder of Neelam, how can the writing be signed by the deceased.

There is no dispute between the parties that Neelam was murdered during her stay in the matrimonial home. There is no challenge to version of the complainant/respondent that minor child of Neelam and Suresh namely Sulab aged 10 years was present in the house on the day of occurrence. Counsel for the petitioners has raised factual controversy supported by documents that can be probable defence of the accused amenable to adjudication during trial on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, it is appropriate to mention that case of the complainant is based upon an eye witness account unfolded by minor Sulab examined during preliminary enquiry. On the other hand, the petitioners have sought to rely upon the alleged suicide note left behind by the deceased, report of forensic science laboratory, the FIR got registered by complainant Om Parkash, statement of Sulab recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and so on. The report in regard to suicide note alleged to be authored by deceased Suresh is based upon opinion evidence but indisputably the science of comparison of handwriting is not a perfect science. The report of the forensic science laboratory requires examination by the Court at an appropriate stage of the proceedings and the same on the face of it cannot be accepted to find fault in the statement of the eye witness and the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.